Of course. People will be people. They will also complain to have 64th blocks. They'll want to combine multiple different types. They'll want this... They'll want that.

You have to draw the line somewhere.

We're stopping it at eighth blocks.

There does not need to be any further subdividing than that.

Also, why are you LOOKING for reasons to not like it? It makes you seem unreasonable or simply stubborn. I don't know if that's what you're trying to have everyone think of you, but it is definitely a scenario to consider.

Also, just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean it's a bad idea. It means there's a few flaws and potential exploits. I am trying my hardest to remove these from the system; and will take all of your presented flaws, work them out of the system; and make it so you have 1 less thing to argue with (to the point where you also agree that this is a good idea.) (This is why it's known as debate).

I don't dislike the idea. I'm just objectively stating that if if you allow sub-square placement for one item, people will want it for all items, signs, torches, redstone. And they should, if you add it for one item, why not others. But this sub-placement is contrary to what they're doing with minecraft. Would it be cool? Yes. Is it necessary? No, there are other areas of the game that needs expanding on before something like this is added.

No, there are other areas of the game that needs expanding on before something like this is added.

The main point of the game is creation. This one concept expands that a hell of a lot.

Torches, items, signs...Having them scaled down serves no purpose whatsoever. Having the blocks in a scaled-down variant enables an entire new realm of creative potential.

You obviously don't understand what I wrote. If you make smaller blocks, you make the placement grid smaller. Then people will want to make their redstone circuits on that grid rather than the current one. I'm not saying they would be scaled down, but people would want to be able to place them closer together.

The one thing that I thought about is, instead of cutting blocks into a totally new grid to be placed, there was a miniature grid that could be accessed within a block once certain conditions were met (meaning the entire world would not have an 1/8 grid attached to everything, so blocks can still be placed normally) and in a user interface screen you could make some parts of the block hidden and reshaped, similar to how stairs are formed.

may or may not pop up.

Stairs use the same texture as the material they are made of, but they are shaped differently and the texture is wrapped around them.

Perhaps for this same instance, you could make 1/8 parts of the block transparent with the new module, allowing you to edit singular blocks to appear like 1/8 blocks or 1/4 blocks if you so choose, and shape them without having to place them on the grid.

This may be cumbersome and slow, and being able to create a major pillar decal in a few minutes, but this will also mean that you will not have to turn the grid into an assortment of smaller blocks either, and it will eliminate the need to add completely new blocks to the game.

To make full use of this in say a sculpture, you would need to be able to place the half blocks on the top half only (rather than bottom then top) for detail in an overhang area. I don't think that currently possible though, am I wrong?

To make full use of this in say a sculpture, you would need to be able to place the half blocks on the top half only (rather than bottom then top) for detail in an overhang area. I don't think that currently possible though, am I wrong?

to make it possible, would require a subdivision of the placement grid. or more variants (and therefore crafting patterns) for the 1/8th blocks. The number is rather high if you want to allow for every possibility of 1/8th blocks minus empty. According to my meager math skills it would take 512 total combinations, 127 if you take away empty and directional variants. I could be wrong, I'm an artist not a mathematician :tongue.gif:

Like I've said I'm not against the idea. I'm against having it affect other things by changing the placement grid. It also needs to be fully flexible allowing for any combination of sub blocks, yet at the same time not be overly complicated. As far as I can imagine this can fit 2 of those 3 criteria, but not all 3 at the same time.

If you don't change the placement grid and want it fully flexible, it will be cumbersome (way too many possibilities)
If you want it flexible and not cumbersome you'll have to change the placement grid
If you don't change the placement grid and don't want it to be cumbersome, it can't be fully flexible.